"Men look at breasts the way women look at babies... 'oh, aren't they lovely'." - Dylan Moran
Just watched his "Like, totally Live" show. This guy rocks.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Money and wet shoes
Having money problems is like walking around in wet shoes: it takes your attention, and it feels like the only problem you have.
Getting money is then like changing into dry shoes: it feels better. And after a while you notice that none of your basic or important problems have been solved yet, but now you at least have a bit more free attention to work on those.
Getting money is then like changing into dry shoes: it feels better. And after a while you notice that none of your basic or important problems have been solved yet, but now you at least have a bit more free attention to work on those.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Depression risk 'highest in 40s'
"Life may begin at 40, but research suggests that 44 is the age at which we are most vulnerable to depression." - Article
So that explains why I've been feeling so good recently: I'm just about to turn 45!
So that explains why I've been feeling so good recently: I'm just about to turn 45!
The exhibitionist sting
You gotta love when police talk people into breaking the law and then arrest them.
A super-budget image stabilizer
A super-budget image stabilizer.
Basically you tie a string from your camera's tripod thread to a bit you hold to the ground under your foot.
I haven't tried this in practice yet, but it seem ingenious, and I'm surprised I've never heard of the idea before.
Mike Johnston said:
...I'm surprised you haven't either...one of those ideas that's been around forever. Sort of works. Sort of doesn't. I generally prefer to just try to brace myself against something.
When I was a teen I read all the books the library had about photography, and I've read thousands of photo mags since, and I'm pretty sure I've never read about this idea. Luck of the draw, I guess.
If it worked really great, it would be used by everybody, I suppose. I'll just have to try it.
I'll hazard that the exact length of the string is important, both for stability and for the health of your neck. (Something that's on my mind for some reason.)
A coding problem
On my other blog, the page suddenly looks like this in all the browsers on my Mac:
... The peach-colored text field to the right of the picture is supposed to be under the picture. It is actually covering up part of the picture (and links at the top). Until recently it was OK.
I've not made any changes to the page's code. Can anybody see what is causing this problem?
... The peach-colored text field to the right of the picture is supposed to be under the picture. It is actually covering up part of the picture (and links at the top). Until recently it was OK.
I've not made any changes to the page's code. Can anybody see what is causing this problem?
Monday, January 28, 2008
About camera stabilization
Bert wrote:
... your opinion on in-body vs in-lens image stabilization? The former seems to make so much more sense, both in terms of cost as well as overall weight/bulk, that I wonder why it appears to be the latter which is more common?
Good question.
As readers may be aware, cameras/lenses with image stabilization allows for hand-held photography under darker conditions, meaning longer shutter times, without the pictures becoming shaken.
I've not seen any tests as to what is the more efficient. But both kinds seem to be really good these days.
Actually more brands now have in-body stabilization in their digital cameras (with exchangable lenses). Like Pentax, Sony, and Olympus. But the two biggest names, Canon and Nikon, so far stick with stabilized lenses only. Those two of course say it's because it's more efficient, but they would say that, wouldn't they? One wonders if it's just to protect sales of their legacy stabilized lenses? (Note both brands started making stabilized lenses back in the film days. Film cameras can't have in-body stabilization.)
I wish it were different. Sure, stabilization is more pressing with long lenses, but stabilization gives (with static subjects) a two to four stops gain in practical light sensitivity with any lens, and that's huge. Just look at how much you pay in money and weight to get a lens two stops faster!
It is clear though that stabilization is fast getting cheaper and lighter. Canon has the new kit zoom lens, which is only 200 grams, under $200, and sharp. So it seems to me that they would have no reason to not build it into all new lenses they introduce, even wide angle lenses. Even so my gut tells me they won't, though I can't say why. Boneheaded conservatism, maybe?
Sure, with long lenses it's a minor advantage that in-lens stabilization also stabilizes your viewfinder image, but I don't consider that a deal-breaker compared to the option of having your camera shake-free no matter which lens you put on it. For instance it makes it possible to combine long shutter times with very fast lenses, which obviously is an unbeatable combination for low light.
... your opinion on in-body vs in-lens image stabilization? The former seems to make so much more sense, both in terms of cost as well as overall weight/bulk, that I wonder why it appears to be the latter which is more common?
Good question.
As readers may be aware, cameras/lenses with image stabilization allows for hand-held photography under darker conditions, meaning longer shutter times, without the pictures becoming shaken.
I've not seen any tests as to what is the more efficient. But both kinds seem to be really good these days.
Actually more brands now have in-body stabilization in their digital cameras (with exchangable lenses). Like Pentax, Sony, and Olympus. But the two biggest names, Canon and Nikon, so far stick with stabilized lenses only. Those two of course say it's because it's more efficient, but they would say that, wouldn't they? One wonders if it's just to protect sales of their legacy stabilized lenses? (Note both brands started making stabilized lenses back in the film days. Film cameras can't have in-body stabilization.)
I wish it were different. Sure, stabilization is more pressing with long lenses, but stabilization gives (with static subjects) a two to four stops gain in practical light sensitivity with any lens, and that's huge. Just look at how much you pay in money and weight to get a lens two stops faster!
It is clear though that stabilization is fast getting cheaper and lighter. Canon has the new kit zoom lens, which is only 200 grams, under $200, and sharp. So it seems to me that they would have no reason to not build it into all new lenses they introduce, even wide angle lenses. Even so my gut tells me they won't, though I can't say why. Boneheaded conservatism, maybe?
Sure, with long lenses it's a minor advantage that in-lens stabilization also stabilizes your viewfinder image, but I don't consider that a deal-breaker compared to the option of having your camera shake-free no matter which lens you put on it. For instance it makes it possible to combine long shutter times with very fast lenses, which obviously is an unbeatable combination for low light.
No Blogger Support anymore?
I just wrote this to the Blogger abuse help line:
Dear Blogger abuse line,
The support line seems to have disappeared? What's up with that?
I looked at the "help groups", but it seems I have to subscribe to one to use it, and I don't want to do that.
This seems to be the only human contact to Blogger, so I'm writing you.
How do I change the sequence of the monthly archive list on my blog, to show the most recent month on top?
Sincerely yours, Eolake Stobblehouse
Dear Blogger abuse line,
The support line seems to have disappeared? What's up with that?
I looked at the "help groups", but it seems I have to subscribe to one to use it, and I don't want to do that.
This seems to be the only human contact to Blogger, so I'm writing you.
How do I change the sequence of the monthly archive list on my blog, to show the most recent month on top?
Sincerely yours, Eolake Stobblehouse
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)